A. PAUL PROSPERI, APPELLANT,
v.
CODE, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An owner who successfully defends a mechanics lien claim but loses on a related breach of contract action is not entitled to attorney's fees under section 713.29, Florida Statutes, absent clear guidance from the Florida Supreme Court to extend the Moritz prevailing party test to such mixed-outcome cases.
[1] In a case where a party prevails on a mechanics lien defense but loses on a related breach of contract claim, the trial court may not award attorney's fees under section…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court”
The court cited the Moritz test for determining the prevailing party in contract actions, noting this approach might extend to mechanics lien fee cases but declining to extend it without higher authority.
Prosperi successfully defended against a mechanics lien claim brought by CODE, Inc., but a judgment on a related breach of contract action was rendere…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Contract Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court denying attorney’s fees to an owner who successfully defended a mechanics lien claim but against whom a judgment on a related breach of contract action was rendered. M & P Concrete Products, Inc. v. Woods, 590 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 589 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1991). See also AAA Sod, Inc. v. Weitzer Corp., 513 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); General Dev. Corp. v. John H. Gossett Const. Co., 370 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1979). We certify the same question as was certified in M & P Concrete Products.
We acknowledge the supreme court’s recent opinion in Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1992), in which it held that the test for determining who is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees in a contract action is “to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” Id. at 810. It may be that the supreme court will extend that test to cases involving attorney’s fees awarded under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1991). Indeed there is room in the statute for such an equitable approach. See e.g. S. C.M. Assoc. Inc. v. Rhodes, 395 So. 2d 632, 634 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
However, given the heretofore uniform approach of most courts on this issue, we are loathe to upset this precedent without guidance from our higher authority.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., and DIMITROULEAS, WILLIAM P., Associate Judge, concur.
PER CURIAM.
We grant rehearing in part to include the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE TEST OF MORITZ V. HOYT FOR DETERMINING WHO IS THE PREVAILING PARTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES APPLY TO FEES AWARDED UNDER SECTION 713.29, FLORIDA STATUTES?
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., and DIMITROULEAS, WILLIAM P., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 609 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the court certified the following as questions of great public importance: IS AN OWNER WHO PREVAILS ON A COMPLAINT BY A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR TO ENFORCE A MECHANIC’S LIEN UNDER PART I, CHAPTER 713, FLORIDA STATU…
Authorities Cited
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
- Gen. Dev. Corp. v. John H. Gossett Constr. Co., Inc., 370 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- S. C. M. Assocs., Inc. v. Rhodes, 395 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- AAA SOD, Inc. v. Weitzer Corp., 513 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- M & P Concrete Prods., Inc. v. Woods, 590 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)